Sticky combat vs Mounted combat

[etherial]

Agreed. The first big issue we ran into when we started mapping ED was the changing facing issue.

Two people face to face in a duel.
PC: I run around to his Blindside and attack.
NPC: I do the same in return.

1 round of that, and it was immediately house ruled.

That was the exact reason our group adopted sticky combat, as well.

I just ruled that facing only matters against 2 or more opponents.

[Baravakar]

I was thinking about this whole issue of fleeing combat and sticky movement.

The situations I think that are trying to be addressed here are:

someone is attempting to move past (within 2 yards of) someone who does not want them to pass
person wants to disengage from melee combat

For these examples, I am going to call these participants, "Mr Stationary" and "Mr Moves"

Because of the way the action system works in Earthdawn, I think it has to be a free action (aka combat maneuver) of Mr Stationary" to declare against Mr Moves that prevents or attempts to prevent Mr Moves from doing what he intends to do.

Should there be a test and or strain involved?

It bogs down the system, but a test should be involved (maybe against the physical defense of Mr Moves).
I don't feel that it would cause strain, but it should also have a limit on the number of attempts per round. If 3 people try to move past one, can that one stop all three (unlikely). Maybe highest defense +2 per extra Mr Moves

I don't think it right in any game system to allow someone to leave combat without facing a penalty for doing so. D&D handles this situation with the opportunity attack rules. Earthdawn is not set up in this manner. It has free actions a person can take if a certain event occurs. If a person is hit by a physical attack, he may you a free action to avoid blow. This is the concept I think should be applied to these scenarios.

What do you think?

[Dougansf]

I was thinking about this whole issue of fleeing combat and sticky movement.

The situations I think that are trying to be addressed here are:

someone is attempting to move past (within 2 yards of) someone who does not want them to pass
person wants to disengage from melee combat

For these examples, I am going to call these participants, "Mr Stationary" and "Mr Moves"

Because of the way the action system works in Earthdawn, I think it has to be a free action (aka combat maneuver) of Mr Stationary" to declare against Mr Moves that prevents or attempts to prevent Mr Moves from doing what he intends to do.

Should there be a test and or strain involved?

Would there also be an opportunity cost of not being able to use another Combat Option at the same time?
Example: You can't do Aggressive Stance and Defensive Stance at the same time.

It bogs down the system, but a test should be involved (maybe against the physical defense of Mr Moves).
I don't feel that it would cause strain, but it should also have a limit on the number of attempts per round. If 3 people try to move past one, can that one stop all three (unlikely). Maybe highest defense +2 per extra Mr Moves

I don't think it right in any game system to allow someone to leave combat without facing a penalty for doing so. D&D handles this situation with the opportunity attack rules. Earthdawn is not set up in this manner. It has free actions a person can take if a certain event occurs. If a person is hit by a physical attack, he may you a free action to avoid blow. This is the concept I think should be applied to these scenarios.

What do you think?

I think someone else on another thread came up with a similar idea. Putting the onus on Mr. Moves, forcing him to make a test to get by Mr. Stationary. TN is derived from some stat of Mr. Stationary.

What would happen to Mr. Stationary's Action(s) for the round? Modifiers similar to Defensive Stance?

I actually have less of a problem with them leaving combat, and more of an issue of Mr. Moves running around Mr. Stationary to get to another objective (namely Mr. Magician or Mr Archer, but also MacGuffin DuJour).